TORONTO – Cabinet ministers would see their pay docked five per cent if the federal government fails to balance its books under proposed legislation critics denounced Wednesday as symbolic at best, hypocrisy at worst.

In a politely received pre-election speech, Finance Minister Joe Oliver announced plans for a balanced-budget law promised by the Conservatives in the 2013 throne speech.

“The only acceptable deficit would be one that responds to a recession or to an ‘extraordinary’ circumstance — that is war or a natural disaster with a cost exceeding $3 billion in one year,” Oliver told the Economic Club.

In addition to the ministerial pay cut, a deficit would spark an automatic operating freeze, Oliver said.

Observers, however, suggested the Tories were looking to score political points by appealing to their constituents.

“It’s largely symbolic,” said Ian Lee, a business professor at Carleton University in Ottawa. “They have all kinds of ways of getting around it.”

Such legislation — already in effect in many provinces and American states — is popular among conservatives trying to show themselves to be sound fiscal managers.

Oliver, in fact, made several references to the “reckless” spending in the 1970s under then-Liberal prime minister Pierre Trudeau, and warned against a government under his son, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau.

Both Opposition parties were scornful of what they called a death-bed repentance from a government that has racked up seven straight budget deficits since Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised in 2008 he would never run a shortfall.

The Liberal leader, who refused to say whether his party would oppose the legislation, called it “fairly ridiculous” the government would now be talking about balanced budgets — five years after the recession and just before an election.

“It’s a great example of how this government simply cannot be taken seriously,” Trudeau said in Saguenay, Que.

Liberal finance critic Scott Brison noted Harper came to office running a surplus but has added $150 billion to the national debt and accused him of demonstrating “toxic levels of hypocrisy” by touting the proposed legislation.

Kevin Dancey, head of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada, said fighting deficits requires discipline and tough choices.

“Balanced budget legislation can help instill a culture of fiscal prudence,” he said.

Wayne Simpson, an economics professor at the University of Manitoba, said balanced-budget legislation in general has little impact.

Staying out of the red — particularly if the legislation demands balanced budgets every year as opposed to averaged over several years — means squirrelling away large sums of cash to weather bad times.

“It does indicate the kind of fiscal prudence that you might like to see in a government but it kind of puts them in a straitjacket,” Simpson said. “I don’t think it really means very much.”

Manitoba had pioneering legislation that docked ministerial pay by 20 per cent for running a shortfall, Simpson said. However, the legislature suspended the law in 2009 because of the recession, even though the province probably didn’t need to do so, he said.

Is Stephen Harper a psychopath? This promise to balance the budget seems to indicate he is. He repeats what has failed just like a psychopath would do. How do we winnow psychopaths like this out of our democracy?

Not least because the public does not know where they cut (or indeed, where they spent) in order to attain “balance”. They don’t bother releasing program evaluation outcomes, so only anecdotal evidence bubbles up about how long it takes to get no service!

Once again, Harper is not doing what is good for Canadians, and what has been advised by countless economists et al, but is doing what, on the very surface appearance of things, can be sold to a dim public for political gain.

I think we can even broaden the malignant effects – diminished career and educational trajectories, lower buying power, and impoverished physical and mental health. Less vital and harmonious communities. These are real consequences of Scrooge McDuck’s policies.

Does that mean Joe is going to symbolically knock his own salary 5% for last year? Maybe they could knock Harper the other 40%, since Flaherty is dead. Not that Steven Harper can’t afford it. I am sure once he goes down in defeat this fall he will have many corporate appointments ahead of him like Baird. Mission accomplished.

Do you think the Cons would accept an amendment to make the pay cut idea retroactive? If you ignore the two years of recession, that would mean five years of Con deficits, so a 25 per cent pay cut this year for all current ministers who were in cabinet during those five years. Maybe they could use the money to reimburse us for a small portion of the tax dollars they spent on false advertisements telling us how well they were running the economy.

To suggest you can’t spend your way to prosperity is the kind of thinking that appeals to the conservative constituent, the grade three drop out. Done properly, is this not what you do when you take out a student loan? How about investing in farm equipment? Or maybe a reasonable car to get you to and from work?

IT’S A GOOD THING CANADIANS HAVE AN EXTRA $4000.00 IN THEIR POCKETS DUE TO HARPER’S TAX CUTS. BECAUSE THEIR GOING TO NEED IT TO PAY OFF THE $150 BILLION OF DEBT HE’S ADDED TOO.

Basically what Harper’s done is borrowed massive amounts of money to pay for services your tax dollars once paid for. Told you’ve we’ve given you a tax beak and now there’s a extra $4000. 00 in your pockets, without mentioning that it’s all borrowed money that you’ll have to pay back later, with interest. After he’s long gone of course.

Leave it to our and brightest to tie attempt to tie the hands of future governments because of all things, they think they know best. What an economic and social mess the future governments of Canada have been saddled with because of this government.